No. People are not shit. I was hoping Yahtzee wouldn't repeat that little emo statement after he made it in one of his video reveiws. I know it's partly what makes him funny, taking his own opinion as gospel, but when he writes things like this instead of vocalising them he just comes across to me as a real nasty piece of work.

There are plenty of nice people in the world. Just because Mr Croshaw does not beleive he is one of them does not make it any less true.

I want to point out another reason why multiplayer should be included as a plus, and not as the main reason of the game:

- Because multiplayer has an expiration date. Unless you count some very particular exceptions (Counter-Strike, Starcraft), the audience will get tired of the multiplayer and move to the next best thing... always. That means game experiences which should be timeless are ofter left half empty because I get late into the party, and therefore all I have is the leftovers. Try to get to an online game of Ghostbusters or Brutal Legend now... Single player mode don't have that problem, since I can have the same experience with God of War now as the day it was released. That situation is even worst when the game only has dedicated servers and don't support LAN, because then you are definitely going to hit the expiration date eventually.

This is related to point 2. Try to get into a deathmatch of Call of Duty 5 now, and you are signing in for a world of pain, and remain more time in to respawn screen than actually playing it.

That point you make on "World of Warcraft" (WoW) is interesting here as I could say the same thing for Offline, single-player games that offer the same repetitive feel yet are still loads of fun: Games like "Torchlight", "Depths of Peril" or "Diablo II" come to mind.

I'm still playing "Torchlight" here and find it a blast to play: I've only got one powerful character in there but am interested in trying out the others more and I still have fun with my main Alchemist. However I look at MMORPGs like WoW that do this and I just think they are pretty...slow, I guess.

My brother is playing "Runes of Magic" (RoM) here, a free-to-play MMORPG pretty similar to WoW that almost works like any "Diablo-like" game. I played it myself as well and I would just get bored with it compared to "Torchlight" here. I know both share the same mechanics, but to me Torchlight allows me to get in the game faster and more easily than an MMO that says I need to gather X amount of logs to refine them into Y amount of lumber to make Z amount of cheap bows. Where as I could get a cheap bow from an enemy drop in "Torchlight".

Though on your last bullet of people I can entirely agree on, Yahtzee. The last time I played WoW was as an undead warrior in a 10-day trail thing and I had some other undead come up and cuss me out because I wasn't part of the Alliance. -_-

Jim Grim:Oh please don't tell me we've gone down that "People are STUPID!" Road again. I hate when people seriously believe that. Human beings as a species don't just fall into these good/bad corridors that we try and force ourselves into. I can't believe I'm saying this but at least try and give people a chance.

Supernovajake:No. People are not shit. I was hoping Yahtzee wouldn't repeat that little emo statement after he made it in one of his video reveiws. I know it's partly what makes him funny, taking his own opinion as gospel, but when he writes things like this instead of vocalising them he just comes across to me as a real nasty piece of work.

There are plenty of nice people in the world. Just because Mr Croshaw does not beleive he is one of them does not make it any less true.

This, oh-so-very-much. I don't like getting insulted for no reason. I may not be Jesus Christ or something, but at the very least i try to be nice. But then again - this IS the Internet, and i can't really do anything to Yahtzee for being intolerably smug and calling me shit.

Those are the exact reasons I don't play online (except the game critic thing, of course). Unless a game is marketed to and specifically designed for online play (in which case it shouldn't have a weak single player campaign tacked on), the primary focus should be on the single player expirience. A game like Cod: MW1 had strong singleplayer and from what I hear was also an online timesink as a bonus, but MW2 just phoned in the story and coherence, and relied on the multiplayer to sell the game. It was an Unreal Tournament in Half-life clothes...

I'm going to have to say a big 'Fuck You' to Yahtzee here. I agree that a story should have a strong multiplayer but only when that is the intended product.

A game like Team Fortress 2, with no singleplayer whatsoever unless you are the sad type of person who plays a private match and then doesn't invite any friends, is absolutely brilliant and has not got a storyline to think of beyond the obvious 'Those guys are a different colour to us, lets kill them'.

The genious of Team Fortress was that ANYONE can just drop in and play and at least have some fun with it.

Of course, when I'm in the mood to play a computer or console game it AIN'T because I'm feeling sociable. If I want to go interact with other people I'll go rig up my sailing dingy and hang around the lake, crash someone's dinner party, or invite my mates out to go drinking. I DON'T fire up an electronic gizmo (and no, my GPS doesn't count).

I suppose I'm alot like Yahtzee in what I expect to get out of a game; what's over the next hill, immersion in the subject matter, etc.

Christ almighty, I see something of Yahtzee in myself. I should seek psychiatric help.

I hate online multiplayer with a passion I reserve for Youtube commentors and paedophiles.

Any game which sells itself on the multiplayer will get no love from me. If I do happen to have a stroke or something and actually buy one, or some idiot gets me one for christmas or birthday, then it gets one playthrough, to test the single player campaign, and then gets thrown in a box and never played again, or resold so I can buy a much better game.

So yeah, I agree with Yahtzee on this one, single player should be the selling point, with multiplayer a distant fourth behind graphics and gameplay. And whether it's in disk format, and whether it's got a nice box, and whether it's reasonably priced.

Huh. I thought that was perhaps the weakest of the five points he provided. I've met seriously decent people online. Yahtzee's cynicism seems to extend far beyond my own. I can't really say I'm surprised though.

And was it just me or was the article conspicuously lacking in any discussion of non-online multiplayer?

Lucky you. I haven't met a decent/nice person online. Just people yelling [add any "insult"]

You have to play on some CS:S servers I play on. A lot of nice people there. Sure we insult each other but everybody knows we aren't serious. When I say "Skittles come here you asshole/retard/fag/[insult]." (Skittles is a real person I've met on a jail break server) I'm kidding. We both laugh and stab each other with our knifes.

Not all people are shit, they just simply need to prove they aren't. However with that said, if the chance to prove one's self is simply thrown out the window by the judged well then yes, they deserve to be called that.

Yep, it really comes down to a good single player experience. Does it tell a coherent story and actually have a reason for all the weapons in the game or is it just a convienient pile of crap tacked on after a multiplayer slugfest was created. It seems that many games do have a good single player portion, but that portion is really short. Usually these games have four difficulty settings: retard, normal person, fps veteran and uber ninja able to dodge the 100 percent accuracy headshots coming in at you from every direction.

But what if a game is 100 percent multiplayer? Then it's a MMORPGER! Seriously though, looking at WoW, you can actually play it as a single player game all the way up through end game content. You don't need to make any groups or run any dungeons. Any elites you can just ignore. PvP is entirely voluntary on all the decent servers. If you look at other MMORPGERS like FFXI, you have pretty much a 110 percent multiplayer game. You are stuck in a party for every leveling excursion. Any new area you are going into will be with five of your pals. Everyone needs to be in their top end gear and spells for every encounter, buffed up with the right food and a balanced party. While you might be able to solo areas quite a bit lower level than you and farm items for gold by yourself, most everything you do will be in a group. Is the grind FUN? It's a pretty fun game with a very different pacing than WoW. I enjoy it, and come back to it from time to time. But I still like that human interaction is entirely optional for most of WoW. And I LOVE that you can turn off channels of chat (I'm looking at you barrens chat!).

You totally got it wrong when you said buying a game with multiplayer and not playing the multiplayer was like buying the orange box and not playing portal. More like not playing team fortress 2. Portal is the short (but fun) single player distraction in the orange box. Personally, I never bothered playing TF2, because I don't really give a damn about the multiplayer. I bought the orange box for HL2 and it's episodes, and portal was a bonus. And I love each of those games. It really does make the orange box a good value. I'm sure some people bought the orange box for TF2 and ignored the rest of the awesome games in it.

That really isn't the truth in all its glory, its just an opinion. I personally find that playing a game like CS:S (or in my case TF2) is very rewarding because you can learn the exact details and perfect the small arts that make you a better player. I also think that the multi-player is the best part of games because I am an impoverished student that buys games may be once every six months at best, but then hey... I have an opinion too.

Though not true for some, I do not have the luxury of taking on each new game on 'the pile.' You see, the pile is very expensive and I am a graduate student who likes to eat from time to time.

As for how one replays the same game to such extents: There is something comfortable about playing a game that you are familiar with. When one is looking for that warm, safe feeling that comes from playing a well known game, demonstrating great finesse and skill with apparent ease, an 'old favorite' never fails to please. This may seem distasteful, or out of the 'gaming spirit,' but it is a perspective that seems to work for me (and my wallet).

I love your segment and your extra punctuation as always. Keep up the good work.

I'm a believer of Penny Arcade's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: "Ordinary person + audience + anonymity = fuckwad." I would suggest a few alterations, though, such as removing the "+ anonymity" part. And the "+ audience" part. The default state of all human beings is fuckwad. The only reason they don't always act like fuckwads is because they're afraid of getting punched. So they're not just fuckwads, they're cowardly fuckwads.

This bit is so true. This was a great read because multiplayer should never be the first priority.[/quote]

The only thing about post that I don't quite understand is how reaching the endgame content in WoW means there's nothing more to see. I happen to love raiding, although I understand why some people, and especially Yahtzee, wouldn't (with the wrong group it can be hellishly frustrating) but unless you're in a top-end guild that has breezed their way through all of the content, there's almost always more to see, new bosses to figure out how to conquer and new spectacles to explore. I suppose this is why I've always enjoyed progression guilds and why I hate that at the moment you can pretty much skip the early end-game content and go straight to the newer dungeons, but I digress.

I'd probably have more respect for MW2 if it just came out as a multiplayer only game at a reasonable price (not the increased one Activision tried to give it), but people calling it a masterpiece annoy me to death when they won't acknowledge the fact that it has a completely retarded single player campaign that lasts about as long as my patience for 3 year olds. If a game pretends to be a full experience and isn't, then it has flaws, which most people (that I know) seem to be ignoring.

You made some good points but when it got to around the 3rd one i realised you tipped over the edge. Say what you will but games like TF2 and Bordrlands are still a lot of fun and thats what its about for me, fun.

You see, there are various different kinds of gamer, defined by the reasons they play games. Some do it to test their skills, some to find all the secrets, and some people like to see things brought to a conclusion.

Well, how about those who do it as a means to spend time with friends or sharing a common interest with new people?

People get a lot more value for their money with multiplayer heavy titles because 1) It usually extends the length of the game until they've finally gotten bored of it (not many people like playing the same Single player campaign more than once)2) It gives people a chance to share a common interest, and eventually, that very idea tramples the game itself. The concept of friendly competition and teamwork is what makes a multiplayer game stand out. Take games like pokemon 10 years ago. It was a multiplayer phenomena for years and it wouldn't have lasted a week without that game boy link cable.

For example, I wouldn't have been caught dead playing the RE5 campaign on my own. It was the idea of sharing the entertainment with a friend that did it for me.

I remember my biggest multiplayer craze came with Diablo 2. On reflection, the game did allow me to move forward without help for the most part but I could always find someone to do a certain quest, duel or just go treasure hunting. Plus beating the hell out of a big baddie with 8 players, each using their own gameplay style, while the screen filled with all sort of special effects was rather awesome.

I really don't get people who can play end-game content and games like Counter-Strike over and over and over again. Nothing ever changes and nothing is ever achieved. And you're taking your own time away that you could be using to get to grips with the wonders of the unexplored worlds in the next game on the pile.

I think entertainment by repetition is as valid as anything else. Just look at tetris. Besides, not everyone can afford a new game every two weeks. I think it's a mistake critics (movie ones too) frequently make. Just because it's not an enlighting experience doesn't mean you can't entertain yourself by doing it. And just what is gaming if not entertainment?

But what if the game is 100% multiplayer? It should be good, then. For instance, judging Neverwinter Nights by single-player, without the multiplayer, the editor, the mods... it would get 6.5/10 at most. But add multiplayer and it gets a high 9, 9.5.

When you play online with someone, you're not a human being to them. You're just another little mewling voice in the magic box of secrets. If you're not in the same actual room, poised to punch them in the face, only their entertainment matters. You might as well just be an AI bot that swears. Surely playing against an actual AI bot would be preferable. They might not speak and get stuck in corners a lot, but at least they'll never ragequit, and you can program them not to shoot you, and you don't have to pay broadband internet fees for the privilege.

I'm a believer of Penny Arcade's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: "Ordinary person + audience + anonymity = fuckwad." I would suggest a few alterations, though, such as removing the "+ anonymity" part. And the "+ audience" part. The default state of all human beings is fuckwad. The only reason they don't always act like fuckwads is because they're afraid of getting punched. So they're not just fuckwads, they're cowardly fuckwads.

Amen. I have 3 roommates and they all have XBOX 360's while I have my Golden Child, the Gamecube. All 3 own MW2 and its like my apartments full of Samuel L. Jackson impersonators. It's pathetic guys can't we be nice to people? I spit on multiplayer and XBOX live b/c its full of racist, immature, and cowardly douchebags. Little punk white boys calling black players the N-word and people just using the F-word every chance they get. "Hey, smash that f*ckin' box." "Don't shoot mother f*cker!" "Shut the f*ck up, mother f*cker!"

Noob, I tottaly would have killed you if I hadn't uh... Been Drinking coke!

It's funny. Most of my interactions have been me saying: "Good Fight" to other players on SF4 (when I feel the fight was entertaining for one reason or another). Most of my "Good Fight" comments come after a loss on my part (I've noticed). These are usually met with a similar ditto type of response. I guess you can get back from online gaming, what you put in. If you spew negativity, that is what you will receive.

In SF4 I'm still a noob basically (I've about 60 - 70 wins so far) and even had one high ranked player tell me to stay with it. That I have potential.

Not all online gamers are f*ckwads. They are there no doubt. But, you can always find decent people to play with.